Skip to comments.Music Industry Plotting to Control Your Record Collection
Posted on 12/17/2001 10:34:47 AM PST by rustbucket
The WSJ has an article about how the record industry may soon try to lease recordings rather than sell them. If you fall behind on your "rent" payments, your music collection evaporates.
Also, new copy-protected CDs apparently redefine the concept of owning a CD. If you buy one of these, you may not be able to transfer the music to your computer or burn your favorite music onto your own CDs or transfer songs to MP3 players.
Guerilla music, arise!!
Well, good luck to them.
You wouldn't have a link, by chance, would you?
If CDs were $5.99 instead of $15.99 (cost of production: about $1.25 fully packaged in volume) the vastly increased sales due to decreased piracy would result in a much better bottom line. But they really fear the precedent, so are exploring copy protection.
Problem for them, though, is simple: either the protection is cracked, or people just won't buy. Period. They need to learn to compete instead of paying lobbiests in D.C.
If it can be played through speakers then it can be recorded to another source. Sure, you might not be able to "RIP" it to an MP3, etc -- at least not at first -- someone will figure out how to do that.
Remember, DVD encryption was "uncrackable" as well :)
The best thing people could do with copy-protected cds is buy them and then return them, so that everyone along the line deals with the hassle and never, ever forgets how much the public hates to pay for the privilege of being called a thief.
I've ripped hundreds of CDs onto my computer but I'm not a criminal or a pirate. These are all CDs that I paid (or overpaid) for. I often prefer to listen to the music I've bought on my computer. My PC has decent stereo speakers, and I spend a lot of time working there. But it's more than that. With the songs on my hard drive, I have instant access to my entire collection -- much better than rooting through piles of discs. I also like to transfer the files to my portable MP3 player so I can listen at work without schlepping CDs back and forth. And I take songs from several albums and burn them onto custom-mix CDs ("Still More 80s") for the car.
Copy-proof CDs won't let me do any of that. Certainly record companies are entitled to take measures to stymie widespread copying, in which hundreds or thousands of illegal duplicates are made from a single CD. But somehow the legacy of Napster has given all copying a bad name.
Did you know that under U.S. copyright law, it's generally considered permissible to make copies of music you've purchased? "It's completely legal," explains Jessica Litman, a law professor at Wayne State University and the author of "Digital Copyright." As long as you're making a copy for private, noncommercial use, you're pretty much in the clear. File-sharing services have gotten into trouble by enabling copying on such a massive scale that it's not really noncommercial even if no money changes hands.
Don't click on this.....You can't have any!
I thought it was just gov't that wanted to control my life?
Maybe this 'phenom' (control) is just endemic to the human race (women want to control men, men want to control women, parents want to control the kids - kids want -and do- control parents) ...
Well, thats not really true. The only reason that the "musician" does not actually get that money is usually because most of their "profit" goes to pay back the record company for advances, equipment, clothes etc...
The more established a musician is, the more they will see. Its hard to make money off one album or your "first" album, because of all the money in advances that you have to take..... and pay back.
I do not want to defend the "music industry", because in general, its slimey. But many people in this debate just do not understand how much money the typical act receives in the form of advances from record lables. Groups such as TLC and the Goo Goo Dolls found this out the hard way. They sold millions, only to find out they owed their record company money.
I personally find it amusing that poster's always claim that CD's by "popular" artists cost this much when places such as Best Buy and Circuit City sell them for $11.99 to $12.99, and thats usually regular price. You will only pay $16.99 to $18.99 when you are at a music store, usually in a mall, that only sells CDs, posters, etc... These stores hate the "Electronic Superstores" who lower CD prices to the point that they are breaking even or losing money just so you come in and browse, and hope you walk out with that new DVD player and widescreen T.V. when all you came for was the new release CD.
Yeh, those two dozen Napster users gave all the legal copiers a bad name. Right. Millions upon millions were using Napster. If it were not for the brats of the world wanting free sruff, then copying would not have a bad name. I'm sorry, I just do not buy this "I just want to copy these so I can listen to them 0n my computer" arguments.
Uh, when was the las ttime you were forced at gun point to pay too much for a CD you knew would suck anyway? Where do you get the idea that you should get something for a "fair price". It sounds nice, but until those who MAKE THE MUSIC decide to not be a part of the RIAA, then too bad. Hell, artists with millions upon millons, like the Rolling Stones, or the (living)Beatles, or Russel Simmons could never use RIAA resources again, and totally buck the system, making their own distribution outlets and whatnot. You people need to ask yourselves "WHY!, Why are the musicians not leaving the RIAA".
His options are: pay $18.99 for the CD in a Manhattan store or take a commuter bus to a New Jersey/Long Island music superstore and pay $5-7 for the bus, $11.99 for the CD and waste two hours of their time in the bargain.
Well, the publisher sees about 1.45 cents per minute after the initial recording of a song. It's actually much more complicated than that because there's a variety of different types of agreements producers, songwriters, and artists (not always the same people) can enter into.
Unless they have good lawyers, the answer is often zero.
I'm afraid you're right--a performer or songwriter can completely relinquish their rights if they don't attend closely to the type of agreements they sign.
I think you may be referring to isolated cases where the RIAA has attempted to sue bars who hire cover bands. I think technically, by the letter of the law, you or I can not set up at "Joe's Bar" and play Guns N Roses or Beatles tunes without the RIAA's permission. Of course, there are doznes or more bars in almost every major/minor city who have acts three or more times a week - and of course, they play cover tunes. This is how all bands start.
I may be wrong about what they are trying to file suit over. Its sounds silly that the RIAA would do this considering that "cover bands" have been around since the beginning of music.
I am not familar with any of these suits. It may actually be that they are trying to stop "Tribute" bands, who dress up like the performer, and do all of their songs. There are actually a few well known "tribute" bands that tour on a regional or national basis. Im not sure if these bands get "permission" or what.
It gets better than that, the RIAA has tried to muscle bars for RIAA "protection" fees for the songs played on tv commercials! If a bar has a tv (with audio) on, they could be strong armed into paying for RIAA license fees.
What is ridiculous is that the sponsor company (Burger King for example) has already paid for the licensing of that song for the ad.
Cover bands get a free ride from the bars' RIAA agreements but I've even heard of RIAA goons aproaching the bands for a cut of the receipts of the night's take.
Once we are finished with terrorists I think a war against lawers would be a good idea.
The only reason that the "musician" does not actually get that money is usually because most of their "profit" goes to pay back the record company for advances, equipment, clothes etc...Contrast that with book publishing which is, still, a higher-class operation: No respectable publisher would dare charge you for the work of an indexing specialist or copy editor. These charges in musicians' contracts are meant to keep them permanently in debt to record companies by creating an uncontrolable stream of charges that can be added to the musicians' advances. It is highly unethical if not outright fraudulent.
I remember a few years when cable companies went after sports bars for showing pay per view events and scrambled channels. I don't recall what became of the issue.
You don't have to get that archaic!! If you're playing digital audio or video, copy protected or no, at some point it has to go through a D/A converter or frame buffer....which means it has to exist somewhere for some trivial amount of time as raw digital data. As long as this is true, there will always be creative digital methods to "cleanse" protected data.
As one guy said back at an early IEEE1394 DV standards meeting "if you can see it or here it once, you can copy it many times!"
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.